From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7941 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2004 15:36:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7875 invoked by uid 48); 13 Dec 2004 15:36:33 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041213153633.7874.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041210181625.18929.opensource@artnaseef.com> References: <20041210181625.18929.opensource@artnaseef.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/18929] Profiling optimized code causes segfaults on ARM due to missing frames X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg01794.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-13 15:36 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Subject: Re: Profiling optimized code causes segfaults on > ARM due to missing frames > > Two things > > 1. Why do you not think the patch is correct? It works great for > me. Without > that information, I can only respond with "I think you are wrong," > and that > is not productive. Here is why it is the correct fix, the patch you are asking to apply is a patch to the middle-end which works for all targets already and there is no reason to say we need a frame pointer when profiling. The fix which Richard suggested (which by the way if you tried 3.4.0 you would see that it was fixed, like I had asked) is a target only fix, preventing the scheduling across to the profiling area for the function. So this in turn a dup of bug 3724 which is fixed for 3.4.0. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3724 *** -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution| |DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18929